|
 |
Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
From: jdrew63...@aol.com (Jan)
Date: 10 Nov 2004 01:59:32 GMT
Local: Tues, Nov 9 2004 8:59 pm
Subject: Re: When Is Bill Combs Going To Answer My Questions???
Now for the points and questions you didn't address.
Please do so. You wrote: I replied: >Evidently these other eleven charges did not mention mercury. They >> >must have been about other matters of malpractice or violations of >> >laws that did not relate to mercury. Uh huh, like I said, the same ole same ole. Was he also charged with using the It is your choice of the word malpractice, is it not? Plus the words, violations of the law?? >One charge is sufficient to remove a license to practice dentistry. What overwheming pattern of substandard practice? >> >Eleven charges, unrelated to mercury, would tend to show an >> >overwhelming pattern of substandard practice. Substandard and overwhelming are your cloice of words, are they not? Which is overwhelming and which is substandard?? >If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated And they get their standards from whom? >> >below standards with no relation to the mercury question, then this >> >dentist should not be allowed to practice on the public -- regardless >> >of any position he happened to take on dental amalgams. > *Below Standards* Standards set by whom????? >In most states, the standards are set by the state legislature. >>His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases Well, no, those are your words. >> Say what?!?! > Using no mercury is malpractice?????? >The reference I made was to the eleven NON-mercury cases in which he >Since He didn't wash his hands. >these cases did not involve mercury, I refer to them as the >non-mercury cases. > Oh??? Like what? >Like the three cases you list below. >> Not seeing decay. That's malpracitice/substandard??? > Yelled at a patient. >Who made these charges??? Yes, I knew, I am asking you if you knew? I should have posted, complaints. >Didn't you know that when you posted the reference? >Generally, charges Uh huh, *organized dentistry* >are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is >the government's dental board. > The 14 patients who files were used were friends of Dr Jacobson an made it Concoeted charges, such as: >> clear to the board, in writing, they wanted nothing to do with this so called >> *investion* which started immediately after he placed an ad which used the >> words *mercury free*. > He didn't wash his hands. LOL!!! >> Not seeing decay. >> Yelled at a patient. My word this is certainly *fraud* and *incompetent* conduct. > (I don't know what an *investion* is.) Righto, ask someone to help you figure it out. >With regard to the charge of "Yelled at a patient," this seems Yes. >unlikely to result in a loss of license. Along with , not washed his hands, and not seeing decay. Those don't sound one bit made up/concocted. do they? >But if his patients all It was made up! >rallied to his defense, then HOW did the state learn that he had >yelled at a patient? Did any of his patients say that?? >Perhaps at least one of his patients reported this to the board. I doubt that the state had any other way of >learning that he "Yelled at a patient" unless that patient complained to the board. Give me a break. A patient is going to a board because a dentist yelled at You need to go back and read what the evidence showed about who made the Then read how his patients knew this was a chop job and wantedd nothing to do >With regard to the charge of "Not seeing decay," this is more serious. In fact he did see it, he noted it in the file and made several attempts to get >Many patients go to a dentist specifically to find out if they have >any tooth decay. If decay is present and the dentist misses it, >serious complications can potentially occur to the patient. If a >dentist continually misses an obvious diagnosis, state action is warranted. the patient to come back and get it fixed, the patient refused. >By far, the most serious charge is that of "He didn't wash his hands." Who saw him not wash his hand??? Do your patients follow you in the bathroom?? >In this age of deadly communicable diseases, the prevention of >infection must be foremost in the minds of all members of the health >care professions. It has been known since the 1880s that the simple >act of washing one's hands has a dramatic effect in lowering the rate >of disease transmission in the healthcare setting. I suggest to you, if everyone who didn't wash their hands, lost their licenses, Doctors can cut off the wrong leg and still keep their license. <snip> Cutting to the chase, the fact he used the words mercuy free is EXACTLY why he The board membesr made it clear tey were upset with his refusal of the use of >Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair I didn't see eleven, did you? >> >prosecution? >> WOW!!!!! >It is unreasonable to say "The ENTIRE case was nothing" without No, it is totally unreasonable that the broad took twelve years to get these >examining the charges that did not even involve amalgam. charges made up!!! >Was it true B I N G O!!!! >that he didn't diagnose dental caries? Was it true that he didn't even >wash his hands? Was it true sixty of his patients jammed the hearing room?? WHAT does that tell you? Did you read all the steps taken to get these charges made. UNFAIR and *Although the Humphrey's office and the board sought to peddle the notion that I all comes back to the gag order. > YOU learn the LIES well from dental school. No, it is the TRUTH. >Is this meant as an ad hominem attack? >What "lies" are in my posting?? WOW!!!! >I can't find any. Dentists have LIED for so long, they know longer know what is a LIE.. Your choice of words and DECEIVING are LIES. There was NO fraud!!! There was NO imcompetence!!!!! There was NO Malpractice!! There was NO substandards. > PATHETIC!! There is a great need to get real and stop trying to deceive. >> Jan >No need to get insulting. I did not insult you. >My point remains -- are there any other cases that would better Your point is a LIE. >illustrate the author's claim of unfair prosecution? This particular >case involved many charges, and only half of them seemed to involve >amalgam. Instead of defending a doctor who apparently was also charged >with failure to diagnose decay, and failure to practice infection >control for his patients, wouldn't it be more effective for an author >to put forward a case that involved ONLY amalgam-related issues? >- dentaldoc Jan You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||